Mitchell's attorney presents arguments for new trial

January 02, 2004|By BRIAN SCHROCK

Daily American Staff Writer

A defense attorney for convicted murderer Todd Mitchell laid out his arguments Wednesday for a new trial or a shorter sentence, choosing to focus on a bogus confession letter that has permeated the case.

Johnstown attorney Jerome J. Kaharick said it was "fundamentally unfair" for the case to proceed to trial based on the letter, which was later proven a fake.

"It is fundamentally unfair for this case to proceed from … the preliminary hearing to arraignment based on the letter," Kaharick said. "And then when it comes to court - and the commonwealth finds out the letter was fabricated - it can't be brought up."

Advertisement

Kaharick addressed the letter, and many other issues, during a hearing Wednesday before Somerset County Common Pleas Court Judge John M. Cascio. The hearing was held to consider Mitchell's post-sentence motions, which ask the judge to overturn Mitchell's conviction, grant a new trial or impose a shorter sentence.

Cascio agreed to take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling as soon as possible. The judge has 120 days from Dec. 4, the day the petition was filed, to act. If he doesn't make a decision within that time period, the motions will be automatically denied.

Once he makes his decision, Kaharick will have 30 days to appeal the case to the state Superior Court.

"In this case, he is just narrowing the issues," said Somerset County District Attorney Jerry Spangler. "That way, when the matter is on appeal to the Superior Court, the Superior Court will have a specific decision by the lower court" to consider.

Kaharick said the motions are more than just a step in the process.

"I'm hoping (the judge) finds some of the arguments persuasive and the case is remanded back to court," he said.

Mitchell, 23, of Meyersdale was sentenced Nov. 24 to 20 to 40 years in a state prison for third-degree murder and aggravated assault. Police said he assaulted Alexander M. Stull, his girlfriend's 17-month-old boy, April 23, 2002 at his home along Broadway Street in Meyersdale. The boy died four days later at a Pittsburgh hospital.

Kaharick argued that the case was bound over to trial because of the letter, which prosecutors introduced at Mitchell's preliminary hearing in July 2002.

"But for the fact of the letter, the case wouldn't even be at the preliminary hearing stage," he said.

The letter describes, in vivid detail, a violent response to a crying baby boy.

Originally, prosecutors believed the letter represented a confession from Mitchell. Now they believe Mitchell's purported friend, 25-year-old Shawn Oester of Salisbury, forged the letter while he was biding time in jail. Oester was paroled and is still wanted on charges that include perjury and making false reports.

After the discovery, Cascio barred the attorneys from mentioning the letter during Mitchell's trial.

Kaharick said he wanted to use the letter to question the Meyersdale Borough Police Department's investigation. A check of Oester's record would have revealed another incident in which Oester allegedly lied to police, Kaharick said earlier.

According to police reports, Oester pretended to be his brother April 14, 1999 during a hearing in the Confluence magistrate's office. Police said Oester has an identical twin brother.

"The police work on this case was extremely faulty," Kaharick said at Wednesday's hearing.

Spangler said he believes the court made the proper decision.

"If it's inadmissible, it's inadmissible for all purposes," he said.

Spangler said medical evidence was "core to the conviction," while the letter provided an apparent "means" by which the boy's injuries were incurred.

Prosecutors concede they do not know exactly what happened to the boy on the day in question. The commonwealth based its case on testimony that Mitchell was home alone with the boy and the boy's 3-year-old brother when the boy was injured. An "expert witness" testified that Stull's injuries had to be caused by massive force, the kind of force that only Mitchell, in the house, was capable of producing.

Mitchell has proclaimed his innocence throughout the proceedings. During the trial, he testified that he woke up and found the baby lying on the floor between his playpen and a nearby bed.

"We concede there was no eye-witness, no confession, no direct evidence linking the defendant to a criminal act," Spangler said. But "courts can and do rely on circumstantial evidence."

Kaharick also talked about graphic photographs of the deceased baby that were shown to the jury. The attorney argued that the photographs' evidentiary value was outweighed by their "prejudicial" effect. The photographs showed the baby after he had been treated at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.

"My point is, when the photos were shown to the jury, at least two jurors covered their mouths and turned their heads," he said. "When a jury sees photos of a deceased child… any objective viewing of those photos is impaired."